T.C SUPREME COURT 4.Department of Law, Base: 2019/ 11656 Decision: 2020 / 2597 Decision Date: 18.02.2020
Abstract: the subject matter of the case, the actual date of the immovable, hand thrown (month, day and year) of questions to be determined by the parties, between the dates of the throwing hand with the history of 09.10.1956 04.11.1983 lump-sum, the history of the throwing hand should be judged relative to relative after the date that the retainer spend 04.11.1983 it is believed that the right has been seen.
(1086 P. K. m. 428)
At the end of the trial held due to the collection of the cost of real estate confiscated without expropriation between the parties: the examination of the above-mentioned written decision on the acceptance of the case by the Supreme Court, the petitions given by the party’s attorneys were requested, the documents in the file were read and the dispute was discussed and considered as necessary after the dispute was deciphered:
it is related to the request to collect the cost of real estate confiscated without expropriation.
The court established the provision by conducting an examination and processing in accordance with the decision on the violation, which was followed; the decision was appealed by the party’s deputies.
Although the court’s decision to annul was complied with, the requirements for annulment were not fully met. That is to say;
1) Considering that the legally acquired part of the real estate subject to litigation by the court’s interim decision dated 11.01.2017 has been reviewed from the file at hand, the cost of the decommissioned part of 445.63 m2 should be ruled as the actual way, while it also covers the sections that have been reviewed and should be decided in excess of the request,
2) according to the decision No. 177 of HMK No. 6100 and the Decision No. 06/05/2016 of the Supreme Court Case Law Unification General Assembly and 2015/11 – 2016/1, it is not possible to increase the result of the claim by rectification after the violation. Rights to the surplus must be requested by october an additional lawsuit.
Therefore, while the non-expropriation confiscation price requested by the lawsuit petition should be decided, it should be decided in writing,
3) It is not considered that the installment on the real estate subject to litigation should be reflected in the price,
4) If it is understood that the date of confiscation to be determined is between 09.10.1956 and 04.11.1983, the victim should not be considered that the date of confiscation is after 04.11.1983, if it is understood that the relative power of attorney fee and relative fee should be decided,
This is not considered correct.
Since the appeals of the deputies of the parties are in place, the provision is made for the reasons described in H.U.M.K.nun 428. according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 18.02.2020 to CANCEL it, to refund the appeal fees received in advance from the parties when requested, and to register the appeal fees in the Treasury at will.